God created sin. Otherwise, this would mean 'sin' is uncreated and eternal, on par with God.
Since the above is unthinkable for Christians, it follows that this deity created 'sin', arbitrarily deciding that anything he found contrary to his very specific sense of aesthetics would be 'sin'. I'm not referring to the common taboos that arise in human societies (taboos against stealing, against killing members of one's own group arbitrarily, against dishonesty, etc.), but rather those 'sins' which seem very arbitrarily enacted (ex: the 'sin' of homosexuality, contraception, lust, materialism, gambling, pride, etc.). Why did God 'decide' to make - for example - contraception a sin? Why did he go ahead and decide so, when he could have easily decided it wasn't?
I'm not religious at all, but all things considered, it seems the God of Christianity is some kind of demonic Demiurge.
>>886313
Sin is not a created thing.
>>886313
Further, nothing you listed is a sin.
>>886345
If it is not created, then it is also uncreated and therefore, eternal. Christians believe God created everything present in the universe ex nihilo. This is a serious blow to God's claims of omnipotence, if there is something that exists that he did not create.
Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabor_Light#Hesychast_controversy
It's not the same exact thing, but it is close.
>>886363
God created everything that was created.
Sin was no more created than darkness.
Don't you think you should know what sin actually means, before you pontificate?
>>886313
I'm a Jude and we accept the fact that G-d is the creator of all evil and good
It takes some real mental gymnastics to ignore the literal word of the big guy
>>886385
Not really. What you pull as "evil" is properly translated in context as "calamities". Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, things God does in the bible. They're not evil. They're calamities.
>>886379
By creating light, you create darkness indirectly, since this the latter is the absence of the former.
By claiming to be good, God created sin.
'Good' in a religious sense is simply what God wants. God doesn't have to be 'good', however, because if he absolutely had to, we then get the same problem of 'good' being uncreated and eternal.
>>886396
By creating light, you create the possibility that there will be a lack of light, called darkness. The darkness is not created. Light is created. When you turn on the light, where does the darkness go?
By being God, and creating mankind, God did not create sin. God created the opportunity for men and angels to sin, to fall short of His glory, and we did. Sin is not a created thing, but a measure of how unlike God we are.
>>886393
No. Evil.
Something malevolent, terrible, unwanted
>>886421
If we're talking about the same passage, your definition does not fit in context, and is not the proper translation.
If you think God is evil, or created evil, you're not much of a Jew.
>>886401
If it wasn't created it wouldn't exist, since everything is created. You make no sense. Also, God created distinctions.
Just posting it.
>>886313
Evil is just a lack of good- sin is just partaking in evil. It is a lack, not a thing with a positive existence. It is only a being of reason we construct to account for the lack of something that should be there it has no existence outside of our language.
>>886313
>Euthyphro
>>886379
>God created everything that was created.
>Sin was no more created than darkness.
>Don't you think you should know what sin actually means, before you pontificate?
Isaiah 45:7
>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
what did god mean when he said this?
>>886396
I kind of agree but I see it as if there is good/light there must also be chaos/dark/sin, and for the amount of measure of one of those there must be an equal amount of the other to balance it out. I choose to do good and live my life as such but I fear for all that I do there must be an equal amount of the opposite being created somewhere else.
Satan created it, and God failed to fix it.
Maybe he thought it made humans more complete.
>>887753
If He decided to give us free will he obviously decided that it was up to us to make our own choices and that's even implying that we as mortal men can even comprehend what our lord deems as sin. No man can ever speak for god.
>>886313
>the God of Christianity is some kind of demonic Demiurge.
Well, yeah.
>>887250
Not everything that exists was created. Which is the point. God, for one, is not created. Darkness is not created. Evil is not created. Evil is twisted, broken, and perverted good.
Sex between a husband and wife is holy. Sex between two men is evil. It took something good, and twisted and perverted it into something evil.
>>887521
I said above. Calamities.
First of all, the Hebrew word for evil, rah, is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times. Four-hundred-thirty-one (431) times it is translated as evil. The other 232 times it is translated as wicked, bad, hurt, harm, ill, sorrow, mischief, displeased, adversity, affliction, trouble, calamity, grievous, misery, and trouble.
God did not create sin. He created possibility.
I'm not a theist and think theism is some real autism, but Augustine provides pretty decent arguments for how god didn't create evil since it's an abstraction and it's simply a product of turning away from god. I get your light vs darkness argument, but if you'd take second to stop being a pedant you'd see that it actually makes sense.
>>887891
You are an atheist? I'm confused
>>888036
Yes, I'm an atheist. But, taking the presumption of God's existence in order to argue the problem of evil, Augustine's ordo amoris argument is pretty solid.
>>888306
So in layman's terms, the issue of sin and virtue and God's "dictations" could be solved by application of different philosophies?
>>888326
It's explained succinctly by Augustine in his Summa Theologica. It's a solid argument that doesn't have great refutations.
However, god doesn't exist. Just because we can't prove he'd be evil if he did exist doesn't mean he exists. But if he did, Augustine's argument would show that he isn't the designer of evil.
>>887432
>Good is just a lack of Evil- sin is just partaking in Good. It is a lack, not a thing with a positive existence. It is only a being of reason we construct to account for the lack of something that should be there it has no existence outside of our language.
>>888382
>Augustine
>Summa
I assume you mean Aquinas
>>886401
okay. serious tho. let's cut this analytical philosophical bullcrap. let's get down what actually happens in "reality"
PEOPLE ARE LEFT OUT. god created conscious beings literally to make them wait at the gate wishing/worshipping for acceptance? sounds like Nazi Germany. oh so we didn't know what we were doing, we were making fights so: THE BEING THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING, instead of circumventing this with his lifechanging magic (that can apparently heal cancer and explosive bowl syndrome), in which case he just lets the jews burn. ooooh k
seems legit
like it doesn't matter this logic game of "oh because god made this GOOD then it made THAT bad". no. that is not the argument. the argument is why does god create things that do not necessarily have to happen? why does god make my best friend get hit by a car by someone who wasn't even driving drunk ? what ? to make space for some new biomass that's gonna make things right again? a balance? like let's be serious. if there was a god fellow, he's a sadistic douche, on par with satan/hitler. he doesn't want us to be happy. he wants us to be insane.
the only argument for god that even warrants *potential* interest is the idea that what you don't know is most interesting, ie; it can be MUCH more perplexing to look at the universe from a direct, microscopic viewpoint because objectivity continually resists to make physical sense. which is why it feels good to disregard the human animal status and act as beasts just the same as it's good to grow a beard and drink 40'z.
>>888453
>god created conscious beings literally to make them wait at the gate wishing/worshipping for acceptance?
>sounds like Nazi Germany.
Sounds like a nightclub.
You think everything sounds like Nazi Germany libfag.
>>888453
>PEOPLE ARE LEFT OUT. god created conscious beings literally to make them wait at the gate wishing/worshipping for acceptance? sounds like Nazi Germany. oh so we didn't know what we were doing, we were making fights so: THE BEING THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING, instead of circumventing this with his lifechanging magic (that can apparently heal cancer and explosive bowl syndrome), in which case he just lets the jews burn. ooooh k
You know where you belong. GTFO.
>>888453
As God defines what is good even the puritain version of reality or one where 99.999% of humans got tortured eternally would be equally good as one with universal reconciliation
OP is retarded.
Gnosticism is literally Satanism.
The occult societies that control this world hate the God of the Bible.
>>888861
ironic given how retarded you just made yourself sound
>>888876
>le demiurge!!
Good job moron, you fell for Satan's lie.
You might aswell join Freemasonry and become a full-fledged Satanist/Luciferian.
>>888891
I'm not a gnostic and you're nuts to fall for these conspiracy theories
>>888910
I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
I believe in conspiracy facts, since they're well documented and proven.
>>888923
then show me the "conspiracy facts" instead of just raving like a madman
>>888937
>2016
>doesn't know about the "New Age" movement and its satanic Theosophy origins
Christ you're dumb.
>>888973
>2016
>still hasn't taken the meds his psychiatrist proscribed him
>>889016
>baaahhh, bahhh, I'm a sheep look at how uneducated I am!
Poor soul.
>>886313
>>889022
nice job projecting dumbass
>>886313
exactly, the scientists love to think of themselves as good empiricists, and choose to spend their time trying to connect back their speculations to some empirical world, precisely because they know that their speculations are infertile, yet they cannot bear not to dwell in their mental proliferations, instead of remaining on pure empiricism which they despise (they think they would get bored).
science is based on induction far more than on empiricism. Empircism, in science, is here for the scientists to feel justify to claim that ''if my little deductive model is verified through my measurement, then my model describe some part of the universe'').
Induction is meant to fail, which leads people to have faith in refutability: if it does not work once, it will never work, which is still inductive, therefore completely dubious .
On the contrary, to be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations.
scientists know that their concepts and abstractions are purely induction, but they still cling to their formalization, this is why they choose to stuff their models with as many deductions as possible. scientists choose to think that, contrary to the inductions which are seen, by them, as personal, contingent, dirty, the deductions are less personal, cleaner, objective.
Since scientists and other rationalists have no justification of their claims, they choose the path of the (intellectual) terrorism in claiming that ''only the religious sheep and the degenerate empiricists, skeptics, relativists, solipsists do not agree with us; plus science give us rockets and cars and computers... see how science is good ! less pains and better pleasures for everyone, thanks to us, the good rationalists ! Science totally works guys, we are spot on defiling empiricism with our rationalism, trust us !''.
>>889121
so you see the problem of the rationalist (whatever his rationalism), or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:
-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist, the scientist will wave then the card of nominalism, anti-realism, relativism/nihilism/solipsism and mock you, because the scientists have no other means, than terrorism, to validate their position
the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance. but scientists cannot justify this stance and they become very upset as soon as they are recalled that they fail at justifying their claims that their inductions and deductions are more than conventions inside some formal language.
So they even say explicitly that they are not paid to justify their faith and that this justification does not matter anyway (because they choose to claim that ''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement itself remains very dubious)
>>889123
the conclusion is that
-no knowledge will be gained from your speculations, labelled scientific or religious or philosophical.
precisely because your imagination is not really meant to be connected back from your five senses.
Scientists and any rationalist choose to think that a few of their favourite speculations, mental proliferations will lead them to truth about the world, will be ''validated empirically'' (after they invent the notion of ''validation'').
Why? because Scientists are hedonistic and love their hedonism. hedonistic people live through entertainment, which brings the most pleasures with the least discomfort. hedonism is the nihilism and most people rely on their speculations about the future, from the past experiences, to enhance their hedonism.
-the notion of irreversibility, necessity, certainty is present in pure empiricism, but the rationalists despise this, because, being hedonistic, they choose to think that empiricism leads you to boredom and sterility (to reach certainty). This is not the case, empirically, since as soon as you no longer care about what you think, you access a new world, free of speculations, where for once you no longer rely on induction (nor on the fantasy of deduction). You are concious directly of what people would call ''knowledge''.
>>886313
Chaos is the primordial state, and we never really left it.
Get all these preconceived notions out of your head and you can see the universe for what it really is. Many parts to a whole, which must be balanced.
>>887521
Modern translations fuck up in some spots due to missing context and Hebrew's very different grammar and definitions
If you want a true translation, you need to use the preceding and following verses in the original Hebrew.
Can human minds understand God/his motives?
If not then why not? What are we lacking?
>>886313
contraception use to be done is craz ways like drinking mercury or dilating your uterus with a stick.
homosexuality is pointless and spreads diseases, do you really think putting your dick in someones ass in an age without modern cleanliness is a good thing? also if you perforate someones colon its GG for them.
Lust, pride all the seven deadly sins are just flaws in human nature.
gambling is stupid and can ruin familys.
all of this stuff has an actual reason for it being mentioned. Pigs carry deadly parasites thats why the bible says not to eat them.
>>889311
Our tiny brain cannot comprehend an infinite and endless God.
It's like connecting a toaster to a nuclear reactor. It's gonna blow up.
That's what the Bible means when it says that man cannot see God's face and live.
>>888453
if god stoped all deaths and all suffering than we wouldnt really be human would we?
>>889318
Glad to confirm that.
So since God create our brains and put a limit on what we can comprehend then why didn't he go one step further and make sure mental illness never existed?
Is mental illness a part of his plan?
If it is then he purposely allows people to suffer.
>>889341
Illnesses is a consequence of the Fall.
God created us perfect and innocent. We decided to rebel and that's when sin and death entered the world.
>>889330
Are you saying Adam and Eve weren't human prior to the fall?
>>889348
Can you quote the passage were God mentions that mental illness is a punishment?
>>889349
Yes, humans are a conglomerate of the perfect being Adoni made, and the knowledge of evil. As I understand it, we're bastards of Eve and the satan
>>888414
No, I meant Augustine, I got the book wrong, my apologies. I read Augustine and Aquinas around the same time and got some of their works mixed up.
This isn't how sin works. As far as I know, sin wouldn't be something; it's the lack of something. Sin is the lack of salvation. The lack of will to accept the good way of life; through God. Really, though, I'm just rambling. I have absolutely no basis in theology, at all.
>>890968
This summarizes Augustine's argument pretty well. Basically this is how it works.
>he didnt create sin he created the opportunity to sin and fuck over the rest of humanity for 6000(!) years XDDD I GOT HIM
Creating the opportunity and urge to sin is just as bad as creating sin t bh
>>890977
Perhaps people shouldn't sin then?
>>890977
Not even close. The blame can only be placed on those who decided to act on that opportunity. The creator is in no way responsible.
